Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

#3 When these Islamist rebels take power in Syria, I look forward to neo-con criticism of Obama for not backing these Islamists a little earlier. The child-like unworldliness of these morons in taking as gospel the Sunni troglodytes' assurances of moderation is breath-taking. It's pretty clear why they're working at think tanks - with their blinkered naivete, it's pretty clear they couldn't possibly make it in any line of work that's results-oriented. How the heck did neo-cons ever get classified with conservatives, who have an essentially pessimistic view of human nature and foreign ideologies?

The term "neo-con" is generally used as an epithet by the Left. It is not a term that anyone would use to describe their own beliefs. I think this can be best understood by the occasional admission by the Left that what they mean by "neo-con" is "Trotskyite."

The people who use the term "neo-con" are generally reacting to the idea that the US can and should sometimes forcefully intervene in foreign affairs. This is not a controversial position -- unless you are an isolationist or working for the other side.

The idea that the US can make foreign nations better (as distinct from simply improving things from the US point of view) is perhaps held by a very small minority. Mostly when it comes up though it is not a serious core belief, but an excuse or pretext. So, Bush used that kind of reasoning for Iraq and Obama has used in it connection with the idiocy we are calling the Arab Spring. That said, I don't think Bush or Obama had any illusions about what they were doing.